Eric, That’s a fair point, and a matter of interpretation of the draft. It would be more obvious that standards track was necessary if the draft defined new message formats or TLVs on the wire, or if any requests were being made of IANA. Neither is the case in this draft.
However, there is quite a bit of RFC 2119 language. That means that interoperability requirements are being made of implementers of a draft/RFC. An implementation MUST do the “MUST”s, and so on, if they want to play nicely with other implementations. Informational status is great for documents like architectures, problem statements, or to document how a particular vendor or operator did something interesting. However, right in the abstract, this draft says “This document examines and describes how ELs are to be applied to Segment Routing MPLS.” That, in combination with the RFC 2119 language, sounds very standards tracky, rather than informational, to me. Cheers, Andy On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Eric Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > Andy, > > > > Don’t you feel that this is just a bit of a flip > observation? > > > > Personally I agree that RFC 2119 “language” and even a > reference to RFC 2119 itself seems inappropriate in an “FYI” RFC. > > > > But I have been over-ridden on that before. > > > > I have to say, however that making something a standards > track document _*because*_ it has RFC 2119 “language” in it is a tad > extreme. > > > > Know another RFC that has a lot of RFC 2119 “language” in > it that is not a standards track RFC? RFC 2119… > > > > 😊 > > > > -- > > Eric > > > > *From:* mpls [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G. Malis > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 02, 2018 9:01 AM > *To:* Loa Andersson <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] should draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label be > published as a RFC on the standards track? > > > > Loa, > > > > There’s plenty of RFC 2119 language in the draft, so I support making this > standards track. > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > > > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:44 AM, Loa Andersson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Working Group, > > February 1st the MPLS working Group requested that draft-ietf-mpls- > spring-entropy-label should be published as an Informational RFC. > > During the RTG Directorate and AD reviews the question whether the > document should instead be published as a RFC on the Standards Track > has been raised. > > The decision to make the document Informational was taken "a long time > ago", based on discussions between the authors and involving the > document shepherd, on the wg mailing list. At that point it we were > convinced that the document should be progressed as an Informational > document. > > It turns out that there has been such changes to the document that we > now would like to request input from the working group if we should make > the document a Standards Track RFC. > > Daniele's RTG Directorate review can be found at at: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mpls-spring- > entropy-label-08-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2018-02-21/ > > All the issues, with the exception whether it should be Informational > or Standards track, has been resolved as part AD review. > > If the document is progressed as a Standard Tracks document then we > also need to answer the question whether this is an update RFC 6790. > > This mail starts a one week poll (ending May 9) to see if we have > support to make the document a Standards Track document. If you support > placing it on the Standards Track also consider if it is an update to > RFC 6790. > > Please send your comments to the MPLS wg mailing list ( [email protected] ). > > /Loa > for the mpls wf co-chairs > > PS > > I'm copying the spring working group on this mail. > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: [email protected] > Senior MPLS Expert > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
